Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Links to misleading or questionable external documents

There are several links to documents of questionable veracity in this article. Chiefly the third link at the end, to terrisfight.org. I don't feel that a neutral and factual article can include a reference to a site which contains a factual error in almost every single sentence. You may as well be referencing WorldNetDaily. For one thing, linking to "The Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation" would give the reader the incorrect impression that Schiavo ever referred to herself by that name. She called herself "Terri Schiavo," and it would seem that if terrisfight.org can't even tell the truth about the woman's name, they can hardly be believed on any matter of nuance. There are a number of other factual errors including referring to the husband as the "estranged husband" and other such misleading disinformation. I would recommend removing it.

Well, punditry is such a heavy component of this issue (as these talk pages demonstrate) and that particular link is clearly marked as an advocacy site, so I don't think that it necessarily needs to be removed. Now if advocacy sites are linked as a source or reference, (and they probably are) then I would examine the link very carefully to make sure that it was worth keeping. --CVaneg 00:53, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation is run by the Schindler family about Terri Schiavo nee Schindler. You could say that, but it seems excessively wordy. "Estranged" is what he is. He moved in with a girlfriend in 1992, for crying out loud, and is living in open adultery with a different one now, with whom he has two children. That's about as "estranged" as it is possible to be. (Plus, at the time of Terri's hospitalization in 1990, she was preparing to divorce him, or so she said, according to the sworn testimony of multiple witnesses.) NCdave 19:29, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There are a number of weird references and cites in the body of the article. For example cite 8 links to the Washington Times on a matter totally unrelated to the diagnosis of Persistent Vegetative State to which the reference seems to be attached. It would almost seem that some people are just randomly dropping their favorite links in randomly. (Update: having gone through the references it would appear that more than half are links to unrelated opinion pieces at advocacy sites, including the National Review and Discovery Institute (a notorious anti-science group)). --Jwbaker

Discovery Institute is anti-science? You must have them mixed up with some other outfit. George Greer seems to be anti-science, but the Discovery Institute certainly isn't. Look at their "fellows" (click on the links for vitas for most of them): [1] NCdave 19:29, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we're looking at a different list of fellows here. While I appreciate your warmest regards on the occasion of George Greer's graduation, perhaps you can keep the relevancy of your meandering nonsense to a maximum by thinking to yourself, before posting, "am I saying this because I don't like George Greer because he wants to MURDER (note capital letters, they make things more true) Terri Schiavo, or because it's based in fact?" If the former, just let it slide through your brain. Hold on to it, it's your opinion, but let it slide. If the latter, by all means, put it in. Fact is fantastic. Now, that said, George Greer is not anti-science. If anybody who wasn't a scientist before has the workings of a B.Sc. now, it's George Greer. On the other hand, going through the Discovery Institute's fellows (and president, vp, and board of directors), every single link I've clicked has ... absolutely nothing to do with science, except opinions on science, which doesn't make somebody pro-science. Professor Ninja 19:50, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'll just ignore your insults. As for the rest, keep clicking. It is quite an impressive list of scholars. There are a lot more lawyers than scientists, but you'll also find degrees in mathmatics, economics, M.D.s, etc. But even if there weren't any scientists at all, that wouldn't make them anti-science. I think that Jwbaker either has them mixed up with some other organization, or he just made that up to smear them. I hope it is the former. As for Greer, I think he is anti-science because he routinely dismisses the legal and medical evidence that refutes his clearly erroneous rulings of five years ago that there is clear and convincing proof that Terri is in a PVS, and that she ever expressed a preference to die if in such a state. NCdave 20:11, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you want, I can just edit Wikipedia:Wikiquette to incorporate my POV, then you won't have to worry about civility, NCdave. I'm finding it more and more stressful to assume good faith on your part in any way whatsoever, and it's extremely taxing. I went through the list of fellows, there's nothing in there that makes them a relevant authority to this case other than their experience in punditry, which doesn't have an actual scientific degree associated with it. As for your assertions that Judge Greer is anti-science because he refutes "evidence", I think it stands to reason that the legal and medical testimony is junk. It's so full of logical holes that children can see through it. If it is true, then the Schindlers have constantly selected the absolute bottom of the barrel to represent their daughter. Professor Ninja 20:30, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ha ha, you know perfectly well that my edit of Wikiquette was simply a clarification of an ambiguity, entirely consistent with the intended meaning. You say that the medical testimony is junk, but you are not qualified to judge that. The fact is that four dozen board-certified neurologists disagree with you and Judge Greer, and say that Terri's PVS diagnosis is either highly dubious or just plain wrong. That is a fact. Since the PVS diagnosis had to be certain to a "clear and convincing" standard of proof to justify Judge Greer ruling, it is obvious that Greer was wrong. There are some neurologists who agree with the PVS diagnosis, but more who don't -- and if even one well-credentialed and respected neurologist disagrees then that means the "clear and convincing" standard of proof has not been met, under the law. Obviously it has not. Greer knows that, but he has refused to correct his erroneous ruling, because doing so would mean that Terri must be allowed to live. NCdave 06:18, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Obviously, Jwbaker won't or can't defend his unsupportable accusation that the Discovery Institute is anti-science. NCdave 05:54, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I think the Zimp.org links are bogus and don't belong, either. --AStanhope 01:30, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm inclined to leave major newspaper and magazine references in as long as they're relevant, but yes removing Discovery Institute and Zimp.org references would probably be ok. I'd keep the NRO references, though, despite partisanship, I think they are well established enough to warrant inclusion --CVaneg 01:41, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Zimp has useful links to many court documents, and and Wesley Smith of Discovery is a leading expert in the field. Both sources are extremely useful (nearly indispensible) to understanding this case. NCdave

Hmm. Appeal to Authority only isn't a logical fallacy if the authority is recognized as relevant as per a set of strict criteria. Wesley Smith is a lawyer and author with an interest group. Therefore, he isn't relevant to this case. You can attempt to obfuscate all you want that this is an issue where a lawyer and author with a definitive and constant agenda is now a "leading expert" (as if that has any meaning) because... I dunno, because he's published books and opinion columns? I don't think any sort of prior jurisprudence and ownership of a typewriter is really relevant to this, unless it shows direct support/contradiction by the principles involved to the Terri Schiavo case. Professor Ninja 19:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Since you saw the (now deleted) references, you must have also seen his credentials. So you know perfectly well he is widely recognized as a leading expert, who has done extensive research and writing on this topic -- certainly not just some Joe with a typewriter. If you've seen the Discovery Institute web site, you also know that it is a prominant think tank, with vary famous scholars like George Gilder, and that it is not an "interest group." NCdave 05:41, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I do not think NationalReviewOnline is an appropriate source. Two days ago, there was a paragraph in the article regarding Dr. Cranford and a PVS diagnosis, which used an NRO article as the source. Upon investigating (i.e. googling) the claim, it appeared that the NRO claim was libelous. The source currently used in the paragraph on MRI scanning and experimental implants is the same NRO article. I would encourage people to look for another source for that paragraph (which appears to be factual, although I could not find a better source). Macdougal 03:06, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

NRO is a very respected and respectable source. What do you think was libelous? The well-documented fact is that Cranford recommended dehydrating to death a Califoria man who could navigate an electric wheelchair down a hospital corridor. Dr. Ronald Cranford is a ghoul -- and the main witness that Felos used to persuade Greer to order Terri's death. NCdave 05:53, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wrong date under Legal involvement and "Terri's Law"

Under Legal involvement and "Terri's Law", second paragraph, there appears to be a wrong date:

On October 10, 2003, [...]. Five days later, on October 10 [...].

(And kudos to all of you who are working hard to keep this article up to date and NPOV.) --Fbriere 09:48, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Culture of Life vs. Culture of Death

Since these terms are being used (and possibly abused) in the media, I noticed a request on the Community Portal for the term Culture of Life. Since my 1st attempt at that article was challenged as NPOV, I felt that I should have the subject reviewed here prior to insertion in this article's "See Also"s. I took to liberty of flagging Culture of Death as well. I want to ensure that the finished products are the best they can be out of respect to the families and all those touched by this subject.--ghost 21:00, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

ABC poll criticism

My addition

The ABC poll has been criticized for allegedly phrasing the questions in a biased way and omitting important information [2].

was removed with the comment

Removed "criticism" of ABC poll. Random activist bloggers do not rise to the level of actual criticism.

I have three points: first, "actual criticism" is the result or act of something being criticized, no matter who does it; second, the criticism was not published on a blog and the person who wrote it, while she does have a blog, is hardly just a "random blogger": she is a syndicated (right-wing) columnist and published book author; third, the linked article gives interesting information about the precise question that was asked in the ABC poll, which our other link omits. Without that information, poll numbers are meaningless.

I am open to a more NPOV formulation of my above sentence. AxelBoldt 22:33, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is a really well-written and well-referenced article. It's a credit to everyone who's been working on it. SlimVirgin 23:02, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Hi AxelBoldt, I did that edit because I don't think the source rises to the level of discourse at which this article has at length arrived. The linked piece "criticises" the poll by denying basic facts of the matter, so I don't really see how it can be used as the foundation of any legitimate debate. As one example, the writer makes a claim feeding tubes aren't "life support" which they are by all medical and legal definitions. The author appeals to the testimony of Carla Lyer, who has been thoroughly discredited. You can find a million opinion pieces critical of the poll (if you need help, start at freerepublic.com or worldnetdaily.com), but these pieces aren't deserving of inclusion here.

Feeding tubes were not considered "life support" anywhere in 1990, when Terri collapsed, so any reference to Terri's preferences w/r/t "life support" should be in that context. The use of the term to encompass feeding tubes is still controversial, but seems to be gaining in popularity. NCdave 05:03, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The testimony of Carla Iyer, RN, has not been discredited at all. That's just a vicious smear. NCdave 05:03, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Any poll which is about the removal of "feeding tubes" is intrinsicly biased, because that's not what Greer ordered. He ordered that Terri be deprived of nurishment and hydration by any means, because her family wanted to spoon-feed her, and Greer obviously believed the testimony (which he pretends to disbelieve) of all those nurses and medical experts who say that she can swallow by mouth. NCdave 05:03, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think if you're going to link to a reference it should serve to elaborate or clarify a point of fact, but the reference you linked is deliberately obfuscatory and misleading. It also uses political blogger jargon like MSM (mainstream media, used as an insult) which, again, I feel will only serve to confuse the issue.

Perhaps if you wanted to neutrally clarify the poll, you should actually post the poll question. Maybe there's enough information on the polls to make a subtopic page.--Jwbaker 23:05, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The reference clarifies two important points of fact: first it states the exact poll questions, second it serves as a typical example of right-wing criticism of the poll. Apparently you concede that on right wing web sites one can find numerous similar opinion pieces criticising the poll, presumably for phrasing the questions in a biased way. If you agree that this is a fact, why don't you allow this fact to be stated in the article? Is it impossible to phrase this fact in an NPOV way?

You are also misstating the life support point: the question is not whether legally or medically a feeding tube qualifies as life support; I agree it does. The question is whether for most people the term "life support" has connotations that are quite different from a mere feeding tube. I completely agree with her criticism here: to use the term "feeding tube" instead of "life support" in the question would have been more precise and would undoubtedly have resulted in poll numbers less favorable to Michael's side. AxelBoldt 23:36, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The language you are using shows pretty clearly that you are not approaching this from a NPOV. You say your revisision of the question would "undoubedtly have resulted in poll numbers less favorable to Michael's side" but you don't provide any evidence in favor of your claim. You also don't seem to have provided any reference bolstering your claim of the colloquial understanding of the term "life support". Indeed, there seems to be ample evidence in contradiction of your claim. The CBS Poll was worded thusly:

Suppose a patient is in a coma, doctors say brain activity has stopped and the patient is getting food and water through a feeding tube. Should a close family member have the right to tell the doctor to take away the feeding tube and let the person die, or not?

This poll used the term "feeding tube" instead of "life support" and the result was 81/13 in the affirmative, which is *more* in favor of the husband's position than what the ABC Poll found. Therefore your assertion (and that of the linked article) is not only tainted with your POV, it's demonstrably incorrect.--Jwbaker 23:51, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are right, I am usually not in the habit of giving references for all claims I make on Talk pages. You will however appreciate that your data does not in any way demonstrate that either of my claims was false, as the CBS question ("coma"!) is quite different from the ABC question.

In any event, I have just found a better link for the ABC poll, where the complete questionnaire is given, and it turns out that ABC actually did use the term "feeding tube", so much of this is mood.

Then only my first question remains: is it at all possible to mention the right-wing criticism of the polls, which we agree exists, in an NPOV way? AxelBoldt 00:23, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I had a feeling that once the primary source turned up, we would see that the townhall.com article was misleading, and behold, they misquoted the poll question. That's why I initially unlinked it, because I felt like the whole article didn't jive with any of the facts of the matter.

For a while there I was using "you" interchangeably with Michelle Malkin, the author of the linked article. I didn't mean to imply you should provide cites on the talk page, I meant to criticize the article's total lack of evidence.

Anyway, you linked to the primary document, which is a valuable edition. The next person to come along should remove this section of the talk page, to reduce clutter. --Jwbaker 00:41, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I now asked the question twice, you did not answer. Would it help if I ask it again? AxelBoldt 00:50, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I didn't intentionally neglect your question; I thought I had answered it the first time. But if you insist, I don't see how you can mention the criticism of some point without raising a question in the readers mind as to the facts. If the facts are truly in question then it would be consistent with NPOV to mention the criticism, but if there is no serious debate as to the truth, linking to critics is biased and inconsistent with NPOV. In this case there does not seem to be substantive debate about the ABC and CBS polls, the results of which are consistent with each other, and of the various criticisms I have seen, all have contained at least one and often several fundamental factual errors. In the case of the Malkin piece, she misrepresents the poll question, and therefore there is no NPOV way to refer to her article.

If any serious doubt is cast on the polls, then we should just remove any mention of them at all. It doesn't help the reader at all to say "maybe this thing, but then again perhaps not" especially when it's tangential to the article. Remember, people will criticize anything (the shape and orbit of the Earth, the parting of Peter Jennings' hairpiece, etc) but the mere existence of criticism does not amount to a substantive debate. It is not enough to say "we dispute this". If there isn't siginificant credible evidence on both sides, then you don't have a debate.--Jwbaker 01:26, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Brain CAT Scans

I've seen pictures of the CAT scans of Terri's brain, and one of those would make an excellent adition to the article. Unfortunately, I've lost track of the images. Can someone find one that's public domain or fair use for this article? --L33tminion | (talk) 03:09, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Google found one here --Vik Reykja ♬ 03:38, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)